Tag: Federalism

The New Anti-Federalist

College of Political Knowledge

In the early days of the USA there was a debate going on on how the country was to be governed and what rights would the people be guaranteed…..the Federalists were a big government faction….to be brief I used a generalization….and they were opposed by the Anti-Federalists…these were people that wanted the power to remain with the states and territories….again it is a brief generalization…..they argued and they debated and they wrote published essays on their particular points of views….and in the end an compromise was agreed to and the birth of the US Constitution was upon the country….

I apologize for the abbreviated history of the Constitutional Convention….but that is NOT the main point of this lecture…if you want more my I suggest that a good book on American history will assist you in the learning of this period in more detail.

I am becoming a new anti-Federalist….why?  The weaknesses in the system are starting to show and IMO is weakening the country….You know what would those weaknesses be, Professor?

Easy!

The atmosphere in Washington between the two parties is eliminating the compromise system of our founders….the system because of the checks and balances is becoming immobile and in turn is doing NOTHING to solve the problems of the country…….and the electioneering is NOT helping the nation for the voter cannot pin the problem on any one symptom and this leads to the slogans and the obfuscation of the issues……

As long as it is about who wins an election…the problems will NOT be solved in a way that will make the nation a stronger entity….

I know the American people are angry….and they should be….but to try and defend ones position by making accusations that are untrue is despicable….the people can understand facts and truth….but yet some would rather go down a path of libel and slander just to win an election…..sorry to let these people in on a small secret…..ANGER is NOT a governing strategy!  It is a waste of time and counterproductive…..it is that simple.

The American people and their anger makes me think of Aristotle…..”Anybody can become angry – that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.”

Basically, calling someone names and throwing insults does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to change the situation…….an now that Americans have stopped talking to each other and resorted to flinging insults….federalism is all but DEAD!

And this Irene, is why I am moving into the anti-federalist camp….and I am NOT alone…..federalism is NOT improving the situation in the country….politicians are killing one of the most original governing techniques….ANGER will NOT make America….strong and free……

It’s “Tyranny Of The Majority”!

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  American History/Political Science

Paper #10

Tyranny of the majority was coined by de Tocqueville in his study and book, “Democracy In America”.  A difficult political term to define….but I will try to explain it a bit……this is one of those terms in politics that takes thought and interpretation……depends where you stand, politically and who you are talking about…….

Tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority’s interests so far above a dissenting individual’s interest that the individual would be actively oppressed, just like the oppression by tyrants and despots.

And then there was the Federalist #10 written by James Madison:

No. 10 addresses the question of how to guard against “factions,” or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. In today’s discourse the term advocacy group or special interest group often carries the same connotation. Madison argued that a strong, large republic would be a better guard against those dangers than smaller republics—for instance, the individual states.

But first, in case there is any confusion, the Federalist Papers were a bunch of editorials written by founding fathers that were in support of a strong central government during the debate over the “new” Constitution.

What can we say about this subject?

If you are old enough to remember your Civics class….what was the major theme of the class?  America is Great and majority rule….right?

Okay that is out of the way…….now let us look at any given public traded corporation……it takes a majority of the shareholders to pass any issue that confronts the operation of the company….That is call ‘Majority rules”! Then why when a majority, a simple majority, of 51% a bad thing….I was taught that the majority rules….is it rue or not?

A Dysfunctional System

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Am Government/Federalism

In the beginning there was the debate on the formation of the US Constitution….it raged in 1787 and continued for a couple years, the back and forth between the Federalist and the anti-Federalists…..finally, they settled on the checks and balances that we so cherish now of the  three branches, executive, judicial and legislative…….and for awhile it work nicely…..but that was to give way, the cooperation of the branches, into the dysfunctional family we have now…..

Partisanship has for a generation brought the functioning of the Congress to a standstill, especially the Senate, the original idea was that the Congress would listen, debate, the act on any given proposal…..that 3 part system is no longer working…there is little listening, there is absolutely NO debate and action is slowed to a pace that makes most knowledgeable people ill.  Madison warned of the result of partisanship in Federalist #10 and he also said that there were two ways of controlling factionalism, they being, to remove its causes and to control its effects.

“a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

In today’s Congress we have extreme factionalism or partisanship, at least on the part of the GOP….the Party of NO is an accurate description……they refuse to listen….they refuse to debate…..what they call debate is nothing but misinformation that is not geared to finding answers to the problems confronting the country but rather to defeat ALL issues not theirs….this factionalism has brought the once mighty Congress to a stand still…..making many Americans doubt the validity of their claim to speak for them……

For the reason I say the Legislative branch is dysfunctional….NOTHING moves through the system as desired by the Founders, instead there are sound bites and hyperbole…little constructive……and now the American people are seeing just how much of a game Congress is…..it is controlled by forces outside the people, the ones that elected them have NO voice in what is to be done….instead it is the cash that is influencing legislation, not the needs of Americans….

With a broken legislative branch, the other two work not at all, so the cherished Federal system is NOT working properly…..Garry Wills argued against Madison and Federalist #10:

“Minorities can make use of dispersed and staggered governmental machinery to clog, delay, slow down, hamper, and obstruct the majority. But these weapons for delay are given to the minority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character; and they can be used against the majority irrespective of its factious or nonfactious character. What Madison prevents is not faction, but action. What he protects is not the common good but delay as such.”

Read the above quote again……(time for the re-read)…….now look back at the past year of 2009 and the antics in the Senate and to a lesser extent, the House……..does it sound familiar now?  While one may like what Madison had to say, I think that the quote by Wills is far more accurate in the shedding of light on the modern legislative branch.

The Congress is NOT working in the electorates best interest……..these people are self-serving and sanctimonious ….they personally profit from special interests and in doing so they are NOT to be trusted…..also in doing so they are only pretending to do the people’s work…the extremely sad part in this game is that the people actually realize they are being duped and allow it to continue……so with that said you tell me who is more PATHETIC……the liars or the ones that allow the lie?

Federalism–The Series–Part 5–Conclusion

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  American History/Political Theory/Government

The reader now has all the tools they would need to make an informed case either pro or con for Federalism.  Ask yourself is there a future for Federalism?  If so, what would that future look like?  Should Federalism change with the winds or is it to be set in stone with only one meaning and one outcome?

Thomas Paine said this about Federalism during the debate on the Articles of Confederation:

“I consider the individual sovereignty of the States retained under the Act of Confederation to be of the second Class of rights (Civil Rights.) It becomes dangerous because it is defective in the power necessary to support it. It answers the pride and purpose of a few Men in each State- but the State collectively is injured by it.”

Virtually all systems of governance is seldom a stagnant entity….it almost always in evolving mode….federalism is no different…..the federalism that the founders saw for the East Coast does not necessarily work properly when there is a whole continent involved.  Federalism has got to change when other changes occur….changes like population expansion, urbanization, economic shifts and local political changes…all these feed the necessity for change in the way governance responds to the needs of the country.

My personal opinion is that Federalism is not the best way to govern…why?….over the centuries and decades, Federalism has come to represent the influence of wealth over the people’s welfare…it no longer represents the republican attitude of governance.  I guess if I were alive during the massive debate I would have been a Federalist….why?….this is a nation, a strong nation, but the petty little games being played on the state levels have given rise to the beast the James Madison warned us about in Federalist #10….factions is its name……a partisanship is its game.  The longer this type of divisiveness continues the more harm it does to the country as a whole.

I would like to thank the website thisnation.com for all its information on Federalism….

Federalism–The Series–Part 4–The Powers

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Political Theory/American History/Government

You now have a definition of federalism and you have the types and the whys….now do you know what powers the states have under the federalism cloak?

State Government Powers

As the Tenth Amendment clearly states, those powers not delegated to the national government are reserved to the states. However, the Constitution is almost silent on what these powers might be. The only significant state power specifically mentioned by the Constitution is the ability of the states to call for a constitutional convention and to ratify (or reject) proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Many constitutional scholars have assumed that those powers not mentioned at all in the Constitution were intended to be left to the states. The most significant policy area over which state and local governments have exercised almost complete control has been public education. While the national government has provided hundreds of billions of dollars to help pay for the provision of elementary, secondary and higher education, it has, for the most part, left the details of education policy to the states. Additionally, state and local governments are the exclusive providers (or regulators) of public utilities and services such as water, sewage systems, garbage removal and the maintenance of streets. Most of the other powers traditionally exercised by the states are not exclusively state powers, but rather powers that are shared by both national and state governments (see below).

Limits on State Power

The Constitution includes several prohibitions on state behavior. Most notably, states cannot:

  • Make treaties with foreign governments
  • Print or coin their own money
  • Overrule civil judgments (such as divorce settlements) of courts in other states
  • Treat nonresidents differently from residents (except for charging nonresidents more than residents for tuition to attend state colleges and universities)
  • Refuse extradition requests from other states (if someone is charged with a crime in another state, a state must surrender the suspect to the state where the crime was committed)
  • Wage war against other states or nations

Now the powers that the state governments have is known…but there is more….in 1999 Pres. Bill Clinton issued Executive Order #13132 and defined Federalism thusly:

Fundamental Federalism Principles. In formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental federalism principles:      (a) Federalism is rooted in the belief that issues that are not national in scope or significance are most appropriately addressed by the level of government closest to the people.
(b) The people of the States created the national government and delegated to it enumerated governmental powers. All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people.
(c) The constitutional relationship among sovereign governments, State and national, is inherent in the very structure of the Constitution and is formalized in and protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
(d) The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.
(e) The Framers recognized that the States possess unique authorities, qualities, and abilities to meet the needs of the people and should function as laboratories of democracy.
(f) The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues. One-size-fits-all approaches to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective solutions to those problems.
(g) Acts of the national government–whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature–that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the Framers.
(h) Policies of the national government should recognize the responsibility of–and should encourage opportunities for–individuals, families, neighborhoods, local governments, and private associations to achieve their personal, social, and economic objectives through cooperative effort.
(i) The national government should be deferential to the States when taking action that affects the policymaking discretion of the States and should act only with the greatest caution where State or local governments have identified uncertainties regarding the constitutional or statutory authority of the national government.

The Clinton admin wanted to redefine federalism….and they were very successful and his order can be blamed for a lot of the problems that states are feeling in their financial situations.

The executive order is a way around the pesky congressional process…….

Federalism–The Series–Part 3—The Why?

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Political Theory/Government/American History

Now the question must be asked…..Why Federalism?

The Framers of the Constitution created a federal system with a national government strong enough to unify the states in their pursuit of common goals without completely robbing the states of their independence. If they had not done so, it is unlikely that the ratifying conventions in the several states would have approved the Constitution. Indeed, the inclusion of the federal principle in the Constitution was a critical factor in its ratification. The benefits of federalism, however, have reached far beyond the ratification debates.

Federalism contributes significantly to the protection of individual rights and liberties in this nation. While many of the opponents of the Constitution were fearful the national government would not respect the rights of the people, there have been several instances in which the national government has stepped in to stop the abuse of individual rights at the state level.

A noble sentiment, but unfortunately it has not done a very good job at protecting the people from abuses……..but that would depend on what we define as an abuse….it will be different in its meaning depending on what side of the political spectrum you stand….

But from the beginning it was more about property rights than the rights of the individual…..if it were all about protecting the people then the property would not have been slaves that they were concerned with…..that was a major problem because most of the people that favored federalism were slave owners and wanted the institution to continue.

Perhaps the most important contribution of federalism to this nation has been the experimentation and “policy borrowing” it has fostered. Because states are free to develop, among other things, their own educational, law enforcement and economic development policies, at any given time there are several different approaches being utilized in different states to address the same set of public policy problems. As the programs and policies implemented by states succeed or fail, other states can learn from them and adopt, or choose not to adopt, similar policies.

Given the ability of states to experiment with different approaches to the problems they face, former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called the states “laboratories of democracy.” In each of fifty “laboratories,” state policy makers can adopt “riskier” policies than a national policy maker would because when a program is implemented in only one state it can fail only in one state.

If only this was true….policy today is NOT made to help the people they are made to assure the continuance of the governing elite….

Another significant benefit of federalism is that it keeps many political leaders, the decisions they make and the implementation of public policy close to the people.  Federalism, with its multiple levels of government, keeps government much closer to the people than would otherwise be possible.

It is a real shame that above statement, while sounding like a good thing has been anything but good for the people of the different states.  What it has done is put the people second behind business interests and once that is done the premise of federalism being a concept that keeps the people close to government is nullified.

Federalism–The Series–Part 2–Types

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  American History/Political Theory

A few quick facts on federalism—28 countries have  some sort of federal system…..about 40% of the world’s population live with a type of federal government.

There are some distinctive characteristics that define federalism—among these are two or more orders of government, a written constitution, an umpire to settle disputes between governments and a process for conducting relations between governments.

Many Americans use the term, Federalism, without a lot of knowledge of what it is or how it should work…..the best is that it is a national and local government cooperation to govern the the country….sounds like it right?  Sorry, but there is more to it than the easy definition.

Within the concept of Federalism there are types….types?….Are you kidding hardly….

The Articles of Confederation had established a “federal” system in the truest sense of the word. In the late 1700s, a federation or federal relationship meant an alliance between sovereign, independent and autonomous states or nations. Such was the arrangement under the Articles, which had created a “loose league of friendship” governed by a Confederal Congress with no authority to compel the states to do anything. It could simply request that the states comply with its recommendations.

There is a pretty good definition of the term Federalism….but over the years much more has been found and in such there needed to be adjustments.

1–Dual Federalism

During the first century of this nation’s existence, the most widely accepted view of the relationship between the states and the national government was one of “dual federalism.” Sometimes called the “layered cake” theory of federalism, dual federalism is based on the notion that there are two distinct spheres of government, a national sphere and a state sphere. Within each sphere, the relevant government is independent and largely autonomous, free from intrusions by the other.

But the tweaking did not stop there….

2–Permissive Federalism

One of the more controversial definitions of federalism, especially in light of current trends toward decentralization and the emphasis on “states rights,” is the idea that the states have only those powers and authorities permitted to them by the national government. Permissive federalism, as this view is called, holds that the states are subordinate to the national government and that they derive their existence and authority from the national government.

Many conservatives have taken exception with this view of federalism, most notably Ronald Reagan who asserted that it was the states that created the national government and, therefore, the states were entitled to a comparatively greater share of governmental authority and resources. This view however, was not supported by the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who declared:

The Union is older than any of the states and, in fact, it created them as States. . . . The Union and not the states separately produced their independence and their liberty. . . . The Union gave each of them whatever independence and liberty it has.

Lincoln’s views of federalism were obviously motivated by the Civil War experience and the belief that no state had the “right” to leave the Union. Lincoln’s view, however, is not entirely a defense of permissive federalism. In fact, it would probably be a misinterpretation to suggest that is was. However, the notion of national supremacy and the idea that the existence of the states is dependent upon the national government provide fertile soil for the “permissive” view of federalism.

No this not the extent of the adjustments…..

3–“Marble Cake” Federalism

In response to the commonly held views of dual federalism and permissive federalism, both of which suggest an adversarial relationship between the national and state governments, some constitutional scholars have argued that attempts to draw lines between national and state governmental activities are counter-productive. Instead of a two or three-layered, cake, they argued that the relationship between different levels of government in this nation is more like a marble cake, with swirls that cut across the levels, often blurring the distinction between them. In practice:

Functions are not neatly parceled out among the many governments. They are shared functions. It is difficult to find any governmental activity which does not involve all three of the so-called “levels” of the federal system. . . . [F]ederal-state-local collaboration is the characteristic mode of action.

The “marble cake” metaphor suggests that the national and state governments are highly interwoven and interdependent. Accordingly, another term for marble cake federalism is cooperative federalism. According to this view, the national government and state governments are not, in fact, adversaries but rather different levels of government pursuing largely the same goals. For example, both national and state governments are interested in improving education, protecting the environment, promoting economic growth and reducing crime. To the extent that cooperation is feasible and beneficial, national, state and local governments can and do work together to accomplish these goals.

And finally, there is the newest form of Federalism…….

4–New Federalism

As policy leaders and the Supreme Court gradually redefines federalism, they are confronted with the need to set priorities and determine which levels of government are best suited to perfume which tasks. The “new federalism” being created in the process is one which places a greater emphasis on the states, both in terms of funding and running programs. One of the most striking examples of this trend is the 1995 Welfare Reform legislation passed by the Congress which shifted much of the administration of federal welfare programs from the national level to the states. State governors and conservatives in Congress are eager to tip the scales even more toward the states. It seems unlikely, however, that a major change in the balance of power is on the near horizon. Members of Congress, conservatives and liberals alike, are unwilling to cede their authority and spending power to the states.

As the reader can see there is more to Federalism than a simple definition that most people labor under.  Federalism is a complicated concept that has numerous interpretations. But the question should be which is accurate and which is not or are all correct?

Federalism–The Series—Part One–Intro

Inkwell Institute

Professor’s Classroom

Subject:  Politics/Government/Political Theory

In the past I was called a “Federal Agitator” the person that made this accusation a decade ago meant it in a derogatory way, but I kind of liked it so I have retained that title for my passing……sorry….that was a digression on my part….now on to the meat of the series….

I have been having some interesting exchanges with a reader of Info Ink, he is the blogger on “Systematic Change In Business And Government”  If interested go to blogroll and give it a look).  After my years of absence from the world of academia I felt that I needed a refresher course on Federalism so that I could debate with knowledge.

I started writing this piece to educate people on federalism and it turned into more than one post….I decided to break this up into several parts to explain the concept and put in my two cents worth on what I think of it all.

I am hoping that this series will induce others to debate whether federalism is good or bad….does it help or hurt…..people need to understand what federalism is and how it works…as it is today people use the term but know little about the term…it easy to talk about the intentions of the founders, but unfortunately federalism has moved a little beyond trying to save property rights…….originally the concept was a simple concept for a simple division of power….again …unfortunately the country has moved well beyond worrying about who is property and who is not.

Do you, my reader know what permissive federalism is?  How about “marble cake” federalism?  These are some of the points I will touch on to help people understand the concept that they so dearly love.

I will examine the different types of federalism and whether we should try to work within the bounds of the concept.  I also hope that opinions will be forthcoming, whether pro or con, all will be accepted, as long as they are civil and genuine.

This series will be continued every Monday until the final part…..please read and let me know what you think….